cj_rumley

I read into you post 412 above a position that seemed to support the notion that model airplanes and their control systems are sufficiently reliable for commercial use, as that was the topical drift du jour. If not I apologize for the misread, but would still like to hear why you thought it was relevant.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Post #412??? That was Judge's post...

cj_rumley

Oops, 410

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

My post had nothing to do with my convictions about reliability of our hobby stuff for commercial applications but everything to do with how quad copters do not have servos and linkages to fail...

cj_rumley

Relevance?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

to what?

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Knowing what I do about British automotive reliability (non-existent), I was thinking that he rides the 'tube' to his adult day care centre...


I was thinking that but YOU stole my thoughts! I have had way too much experience with both and none of it was good. I moved on to real cars and motorcycles - American or Japanese - at least they WORK!

Sport_Pilot

IMO my experience is that servo's and other equipment are rather reliable, at least if you stick with Futaba, Hitech, JR, and Airtronics. For commercial sUAV I would suggest that they never fly over people and cars unless they weigh under a set weight and fly under a set speed (chosen by how much weight and speed to cause an open wound), or if all are told of the risks and sign statements that they were told. Also they should have some sort of backup, Two batteries, two receivers redundant servo's, etc. However, this standard should probably be something set by a sUAV group, or some industry standard. Or perhaps a code adopted by most states. The FAA will just add so much expensive stuff it would be cheaper to hire a helicopter.

bogbeagle

One reason for the hair-splitting is that, as ever, we are talking about "personal preferences".

Some people have a desire to impose their "safety preferences", upon other people.

The problem for them is that they have to justify the imposition of their own preferences, whilst avoiding scrutiny of their own behaviour.


LCS said it ... "They know not what they do...just paving the road.. "




See, we never really tackle "safety issues". What we do is constrain behaviour. A component fails ... so, no-one can use those components. A model hits a person ... so, no persons allowed within specified distance.

Well, each constraint narrows the range of utility of the hobby. Eventually, you will end with a analog of the airline industry ... where aeroplanes fly prescribed profiles, in straight lines, with minimal human intervention. But, along the way, the hobby is sacrificed.

Now, if you really want to talk safety in model aviation, I'll open a thread about medical issues. That ought to put a few of you on tenter-hooks.




(Yes, Brit cars and bikes were crap. Lucas electrics played their part, esp. with 6 Volt systems. Been driving French, for a few years, now. Fair value, if you avoid the complex ones that have all the bling. Luckily for me, the Day-Care Centre is within walking distance, so my Mum takes me.)

NorfolkSouthern

That would be a very interesting thread. In fact, there are surprising numbers of people who end up flying RC when they are no longer certified for full-scale due to one medical issue or another. And then, we can REALLY watch the fur fly when mental health, and personality disorders are discussed. I'll grab the popcorn!

I'll start by saying that there are NO licensing requirements by either the AMA or FAA involved with flying RC model planes. One can be a total psychopath with paranoid schizophrenia and multitudes of co-morbid conditions thrown in the mix, and that won't stop them from obtaining and operating a Weston Magnum to work their evil because there's no medical certificate involved. Wouldn't most of us shudder when that particular sociopath/psychopath/butcher is a skilled RC pilot and gets hold of one of those things?

OK, now I really opened up a can of worms!

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Did you ever!!! Your going to get your PP spanked now...I did for pointing out how quads haven't any servos or linkages to fail and immediately got an inquisition of relevance...should have just jumped on the bandwagon demeaning bogbeagle about the autos he drives... I'll learn one day how to be apart of the cool gang here.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

In a Quad pram no doubt
Sorry couldn't resist my bad

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry to have not made it clear for all. I will not demean bogbeagle for the cars he does not even drive (his own words - not mine). However, we are talking RECREATIONAL MODELS here and he keeps stepping in and trying to force the thread off topic by making a big issue about reliability in our hobby while chewing at things that are not really relevant to the subject at hand AND has no dog in the hunt! The thread is about COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, not hobby actions.

I think that his input makes as much sense as one of us dissing his Queen.

That being said, I am sure he might be capable of understanding that most of us do not fly our 1/4 scale stuff OVER PEOPLE which is what the subject of this thread was doing. Your observation about the dearth of servos in quad copters is . . accurate but ignores the point of the issue about reliability. One of my friends got a quad copter and in less than a week needed to replace some board in it as it had burned out. While that is anecdotal rather than statistical it is not the sort of thing *I* would want to happen over innocent bystanders, but clearly what our British commentator thinks is great and wonderful unless he can force us all out of the hobby.

In short, he has convinced me that he does not fly and his only purpose on these forums is to stir things up which he does. However I have been thinking about the name he hides behind - bogbeagle - that sounds like swamp dog, an unclean animal. Makes me wonder what his real purpose is because it obviously is not safety in model aviation, because he constantly harps about giving up rights he does not even have.

As for the idea of a sUAV group setting standards, the FAA started that process several years ago and equipment reliability was one of the first issues on the 'table' as it were. That is where the 'man capable' term first got applied to this sort of stuff that I know of. The lines of the arguments seemed to be split between the small manufacturers and the biggies with the larger folks insisting on 'man capable' standards. That is one reason I brought this subject into this conversation, not realizing that the mad hatters would run amok over it in emotional diatribes rather than engage their rational critical thinking.

My personal opinion is that no sUAV should be allowed over people (neighborhoods or down town) that does not have a fully functional and operating backup system on board. But that may be because I have already killed enough people and don't wish to shed any more blood.

RVN '67, '68, '69

JohnShe

Well, actually, the can of worms was opened back on page one. We have spent the last 17 pages talking about the sociopath who flew a toy over a college campus and got away with it on a technicality.

On the other hand, i think that recreational model aviation is good therapy for mental illness conditions. I know that I don't have to wear my tinfoil cap when I am building and flying and the only advice my inner voices give me is how to build straight and strong and to fly safely.

bogbeagle

"sociopath who flew a toy over a college campus"

Yep, sociopathy defined. Pure evil, right there.

(My emboldening.)

bogbeagle

Mr Branaum,

Would you be kind enough to enlarge upon the distinction between Commercial ops and Hobby ops ... as you see it?

I infer from your previous posts that you believe that, "A by-stander to a commercial flight, is entitled to greater consideration than a by-stander to a hobby flight."


Is that your stance?

cj_rumley

No offense intended. You stated a couple of facts including "quads haven't any servos or linkages to fail" and I just asked you to clarify how you felt they factored into the discussion, i.e., what is the point you are are trying to make by citing those facts. Something to the effect that "it appears quads may turn out to be more reliable because they have fewer things to fail, and that makes them potentially more likely to meet airworthiness standards appropriate for commercial use of sUAVs." That's just one possibility of what your stated facts may pertain to, and I could be totally off the mark as to what your intended point was. I don't pretend to speak for you. That is why I asked.

Sport_Pilot

As I recall that was about sUAV's flying in controlled airspace. Not below 400 feet.

JohnShe

You are still trolling with that 400' misconception. It doesn't apply to sUAS operations.

JohnShe

Bob, since you don't own and opwerate model airplanes for recreation, your opinion is worthless.

cj_rumley

Where did you get the idea he is not a modeler?

This thread has gotten particularly emotional, to a point where ridiculous assumptions are stated as fact in what is often thinly veiled ad hom. I made statement about bogbeagle so preposterous that I thought it could not be taken as anything other than satire. He 'got it' with a good sense of humor. Not so for some that couldn't take a pause from grinding their axes.

JohnShe

His statements indicate a lack of modeling knowledge and an apparent effort to feign misunderstanding. He has behaved more like a troll than a contributor to the discussion.

The statement that I responded to made it clear that he doesn't have a clue as to how charted clubs protect their spectators.

JW0311

I was on the local college campus the other day and noticed a quad copter flying around the area were some new construction was going on. I immediately reflected on this thread and thought, I should walk over there and impose the death penalty on this guy. Instead I engaged him in conversation about what he was doing. He stated that he was doing some work for a contractor by gathering some images. This got me thinking. There were quite a few people in the area and the potential danger was obvious. I wonder what reasonable safety measures could be put in place in this situation. Perhaps some large bright colored signs or flags to warn bystanders. Maybe a safety spotter? Any reasonable thoughts? If there is going to be regulation, what does that look like? The aircraft? The pilot? Both? Does the pilot need a physical? I'm curious.

James

JW0311

Or should I have killed him?

James

JohnShe

Well, the FAA is trying to figure out the answers to your question as we speak. I would have called the law on him because he was posing a danger to people and property.